On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, comex wrote:
> 2009/4/9 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>:
>> However, if you look at the contest rules (R2233), the construct that
>> the contest owns a certain number of points, so the action is actually
>> "awarding a subset of these 5N points from this contest" while the
>> Scorekeepor (R2234) "awards a subset of [a different] N points."
>> So these actions are different, because the awards are drawn from
>> different subsets of [potential] points.
>
> Ah, that is a useful third interpretation of the clause: the contest
> has an implied "pool of points" from which the awards are drawn, so I
> am awarding points from contest A's pool, which is clearly different
> than any other sort of award. However, interpreting it that way is a
> bit of a stretch, especially considering the definition of award: "to
> 'award' an asset to an entity is to create it in that entity's
> possession." I find it hard to believe that creating something in
> someone's possession necessarily involves drawing it from some subset
> of potential points.
I readily agree that it's a stretch. My first conclusion this morning
was the same as yours ("Uh oh, this means points are broken"), then I was
seeing if there was a way to save them. There is some slight
linguistic evidence for it (e.g. "such" points) but it's slight and
might not hold up as we pursue its logical consequences.
It becomes more acute when we think if it as SHALLs as well. The
Scorekeepor awarding contestmaster's is a SHALL, and contest points
are usually due to SHALLs in the contract. In the past, it has been
precedent and at one point a rule that (for example) if there were
two separate requirements to publish the same report, then publishing
a single report satisfies both requirements. That implies that one
points award would satisfy both rules, too.
-Goethe
